"Fat-shaming may curb obesity" ???

There's something to be said about the continued breakdown of our culture. People should be horrified that it's perfectly routine to drive up to a window in your car to get food. But I suspect that the thought never even crosses peoples' minds. The idea of people going to all you can eat buffets is also culturally reprehensible.

“The last of the human freedoms is to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances.” ~Victor E. Frankl

Amazingly this metabolic issue has only come about in the last 30 years and seems to have largely restricted itself to the USA and a few other select few mainly western countries though it doesn't seem to affect everyone.

It also coincidentally occurred when people started snacking all the time, super sizing their meals eating high empty calorie Fast Food at every meal, stopped walking anywhere and spend 24/7 sitting at computers, TV's, games consoles and desks at work

Amazingly so called metabolic diseases such as type 2 diabetes have suddenly shot up as a result and are no reflection on the actions of the people suddenly afflicted.

When I was a kid everyone knew who the fat kid was, because there was only one or two

Now they are practically the norm in some areas, this might be the first generation of kids who die b4 their parent's!

The research, however, is very clear: not everybody has it as easy as some folks do. Some people’s bodies are, in fact, demonstrably more resistant to weight loss (or gain) than others. Not that they can’t lose (or gain) weight but it comes off or on more slowly. More accurately, their bodies fight back harder.

Researchers call these folks Diet Resistant and the reasons behind this resistance is just starting to be determined. It probably has to do with how these individuals brains perceive changes in caloric intake which determines how their brains react to those changes. Some people’s bodies simply increase metabolic rate more quickly (or drop it more quickly) in response to increased or decreased calories. You can see similar variations in terms of what’s lost during dieting; given the same diet and exercise program, some people will lose a lot more muscle than another.

And we all have that one friend who eats nothing but ice cream and soda and never gains a pound. Of course, when you look closely, you find that the person really isn’t eating as much as it looks like overall, or they are only eating that one big meal per day that you happened to see, or they are burning it off because they are constantly moving (in essence, they fidget the excess calories off), or they compensate the next day after eating a lot and eat very little so that overall they maintain their weight.

These people’s brains sense the caloric excess more readily and either blunt hunger harder and faster, or get the person to move more, to burn it off. The same thing happens in reverse, some people’s metabolic rates slow down faster when calories are restricted, or makes them move around less during the day so they burn fewer calories, making further fat loss a lot harder. You can learn everything you ever wanted to know about this by reading the article Metabolic Rate Overview.

The above is right out of the link posted by Bglrn. How is this not a difference in metabolism?

Well that is true and false in the same time. It is true that some individuals get fatter or slimmer more easily and that everybody can think of a friend who seemed to eat anything and not gain weight, but that 99 times out of 100 has nothing to do with a supposedly faster metabolism per se, but rather with the fact that these people tend to self regulate more easily by increasing their activity naturally and by reducing calories eaten with snacks or at following meals.I am not aware of any study that under controlled conditions has found people that eating the same calories and consuming the calories via their normal activity obtained noticeably different results.

Chances are that those people that seem to overeat without getting fat do not snack as much outside meals and are way more active than we are, which does not necessarily imply more sport.

I don't know if you read the whole page or not but, the idea that someone can not lose weight on a caloric deficit is not supported in fact.

If you read through Lyle's site you will see that he refers to a specific phenomenon quite frequently. The name he gave escapes me but the idea is; in the face of all of the thorough research based on peer reviewed studies that he does, someone will always cherry pick the stuff that supports their ideals and latch on to it, while discounting the point of the entire article. Most of the time he even predicts it, which is quite interesting.

I think a lot of people here are simply talking past each other instead of listening to the others point of view and engaging in any constructive discussion. People are putting a lot of words in other peoples mouth. Each of us has something useful to contribute to each other if we can be open minded and challenge our own preconceptions once in a while.

According to the CDC obesity is skyrocketing:

On a societal level the weight-loss failure rate isn't the often quoted 95% but rather something well over 100%.

I think what eKatherine is trying to say is that following conventional advice has been failing us the whole time. The conventional advice being eat less and exercise more.

The argument against this is that 'people just aren't listening'.

I think they are and as evidence I look at dietary fat consumption. It has been beaten into our heads for a long time that fat, and cholesterol are bad for us, I have an George Foreman grill and a box of egg whites to prove that I was snookered too. How did Americans respond to this? They followed government advice:

Objective: This article looks at the food group choices by individuals grouped based on fat intake, saturated fat intake, and use of lowfat foods.

Methods: Food consumption data from USDA’s National Food Consumption Surveys (NFCS) and the Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) were used to look at changes in the mean energy, percent calories from fat and saturated-fat and total-fat intakes over time. USDA’s 1995 CSFII data were used to evaluate the diets of individuals grouped based on percent calories from fat and use of low-fat foods. Individuals six to 50 years old who had complete food intake records were included and five age-gender classifications were used.

Results: The percent of calories from total fat and saturated fat have steadily declined over the last 30 years, and the amount of fat in the diet has increased from 1989 to 1995. Those whose diets met the Dietary Guidelines Recommendations for fat and saturated fat had lower fat intakes. Except for adult males, those with low-fat diets had higher intakes of total-food amount. Also, lower saturated-fat intakes were associated with lower energy intakes. In general, high-fruit-and-grain-products consumption were seen in groups with low-fat intake. For those who included low-fat foods in their diets and also had low-fat intakes, rice and pasta were the major foods of choice for calories. Fried potatoes were one of the main sources of calories for high-fat groups.

Conclusion: The study showed individuals whose diets included low-fat foods are more likely to have a diet that meets the dietary guidelines recommendations for fat and saturated fat.

Can a 5 percent decrease in activity lead to over 30 percent increase in obesity?Maybe I suppose. Statistics can be a funny thing so I'll leave it up to each of you to interpret that data for yourselves.

Now this isn't to say that fat acceptance is a good thing that should take hold anymore than 'diabetes acceptance' or 'heart disease acceptance' it is simply a ridiculous idea. Heart disease and diabeties has been on the rise just the same as obesity, it seems these diseases may be related.http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/113/6/e85/F54.expansion.html

However that doesn't mean that obesity is something that people have the type of control over that some here seem to think they have.

Just eat fewer calories than you burn! Super easy!

Hey... wanna know how to get rich? Its easy!

Spend less than you make! It's all about monetary balance!

You don't need to think about any of those other silly people that talk about stock markets, or education, or starting a business. Just make sure to spend less than you make! It's so easy a caveman could do it! It doesn't matter who you are or what your talents are... we're all the same!

Calories are important. Just like spending less than you make is important. Bill Gates could be as poor as me if he spent all his money but I will never be as rich as him if I simply spend less money. It's complicated.

I posted this earlier from an article in the NY Times called The Fat Trap

Quote:

While researchers have known for decades that the body undergoes various metabolic and hormonal changes while it’s losing weight, the Australian team detected something new. A full year after significant weight loss, these men and women remained in what could be described as a biologically altered state. Their still-plump bodies were acting as if they were starving and were working overtime to regain the pounds they lost. For instance, a gastric hormone called ghrelin, often dubbed the “hunger hormone,” was about 20 percent higher than at the start of the study. Another hormone associated with suppressing hunger, peptide YY, was also abnormally low. Levels of leptin, a hormone that suppresses hunger and increases metabolism, also remained lower than expected. A cocktail of other hormones associated with hunger and metabolism all remained significantly changed compared to pre-dieting levels. It was almost as if weight loss had put their bodies into a unique metabolic state, a sort of post-dieting syndrome that set them apart from people who hadn’t tried to lose weight in the first place.

This isn't some imaginary thing. This is a real, measurable, response to simple calorie restriction. What good does it to shame someone who is fighting their own body?

Then there are they psychological effects, which can be extremely profound on kids, that can wreak havoc for a lifetime. I can speak to this personally.

It's been a while but I used to frequent these boards as a low-carb advocate. I've seen the errors of my ways and no longer subscribe to the carbohydrate/insulin hypothesis of obesity (however I still think a ketogenic diet can be an extremely useful tool in the healthy living tool box).

My own conclusion around obesity is that it is far, far more complex a problem than we can even imagine and no one solution will fit everyone. It involves many factors including hormones, digestive health, inflammation, genetics, macronutrients, micronutrients, epigenetics, environmental toxins, food toxins, sleep quality, exercise, and psychological health to name a few.

And to confuse everyone... I think it is equally useless and unproductive to tell someone that they aren't trying hard enough as it is to tell someone that they can't do anything about their weight problems.

Mark Twain – ‘It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.’

You can observe a car accelerate when you press the gas. Conversely, you can study the amount of fuel and the amount of air that the depression of the accelerator supplies, and the tire temp, and street temp and the barometric pressure and on and on.

But the bottom line is when you press the pedal it goes forward.

Saturated fat, carbohydrates, hormones, and on and on.

You still have to be at a deficit, regardless of any of this. And if you have become obese and lose weight you will have to remain dedicated to watching your intake. It sucks, but it is what it is. Being lackadaisical about your food intake will generally mean eating at a surplus which will magically make you gain mass.

I don't believe we are arguing anything here. We agree on the biggest picture, caloric intake and expenditure. However the pleas of "something is wrong with me that's why I can't lose weight" don't hold much validity for some of us.

I don't know if you read the whole page or not but, the idea that someone can not lose weight on a caloric deficit is not supported in fact.

And here's where people are talking past each other in this discussion, I think. This quote is true - there's no reliable evidence, after decades of increasingly sophisticated and tightly controlled research, that a calorie deficit will not result in loss of body mass.

That isn't the end of the story though - while it's easy (and often effective) to say "eat less, move more," what matters just as much is how to sustain long-term changes. And this is where things get a lot more complicated, with dozens if not hundreds of competing theories, ranging from societal (sin taxes, calorie counts on menus, even changes to zoning and planning), to cognitive and behavioral, to medical. I suspect all of these factors are relevant, but to different degrees in different groups and individuals.

To sustain weight loss, there has to be a long-term match between someone's lifestyle and their diet, and we haven't been very good at finding successful long-term strategies to correct existing imbalances - at least on a population level. No doubt people can be found for whom education about energy balance and shame can be powerful motivators, and will "work." But there's also no shortage of evidence that shame can and will have the opposite effect for many people.

By the same token, highly restrictive diets (e.g., ketogenic, vegan) may work very well for some people, but there is also good evidence that greater flexibility works better for many people. Of course, when I say the diets "work," I mean only that people are able to adhere to them - because in the end, a temporary energy deficit without long-term adherence is of little value.

This debate about "fault" and the role it plays in diets is beside the point, in my opinion. I don't like how many gurus, authors, and bloggers attract audiences by starting their pitch with "It's not your fault!" - or the other side of the coin "Just stop being a lazy glutton." "Fault" is not that relevant and I think it's generally counterproductive to discuss; value judgments will taint a discussion that should be based on evidence and outcomes.

Should regular exercise not be recommended for a particular person, just because it might back-handedly imply a character failure for the person's lack of exercise before? No. The value judgment shouldn't be relevant - what matters is, what are the person's goals now? How likely is it that certain forms of exercise or activity will help that person reach those goals? What are the interests, habits, tastes, lifestyle factors, and health issues that will make any given change easy or hard to sustain over time? The same goes for diet questions.

Give me an otherwise healthy overweight person, let me lock them in a house with control over what they eat, and I can absolutely guarantee that they will lose weight. It's not hard - but also not of much value, because what really matters is what happens when they leave. Strategies that depend on brute willpower alone are basically doomed to fail - there's pretty solid evidence on that point, even if common sense didn't tell us that already.

Energy balance is only one piece of the puzzle, and this discussion seems to be people focusing on different pieces.

So in 30 years people have genetically changed to obese but only in the USA... please

Funny as western food habits start spreading like a virus the countries that adopt it start getting fatter

I don't think anyone here said this. I know some people make arguments like it - but for reasons you've already pointed out, they're not likely to be hanging around a calorie-tracking website. You can probably assume that everyone here believes that people have at least some control over their body composition.

You can observe a car accelerate when you press the gas. Conversely, you can study the amount of fuel and the amount of air that the depression of the accelerator supplies, and the tire temp, and street temp and the barometric pressure and on and on.

You can also observe a car get worse miles per gallon when using lesser quality fuel. (i.e. consumes more fuel to go the same distance) You can also observe extended use of low grade fuel which can cause a car to wear and breakdown.

So in 30 years people have genetically changed to obese but only in the USA... please

Funny as western food habits start spreading like a virus the countries that adopt it start getting fatter

I didn't know the USA exported food habits.

You imply that it is simply the habit that causes obesity. Perhaps it is the food that causes the habit?

You show me a country with crappy US food habits and I'll show you a country with crappy, processed, US food.

By habit I'm referring to the food they eat like enormous burgers, super size fries, buckets of cola , etcUSA has exported McDonald's, burger king, kfc, subway amongst other dietary crap to countries all over the world

You can observe a car accelerate when you press the gas. Conversely, you can study the amount of fuel and the amount of air that the depression of the accelerator supplies, and the tire temp, and street temp and the barometric pressure and on and on.

You can also observe a car get worse miles per gallon when using lesser quality fuel. (i.e. consumes more fuel to go the same distance) You can also observe extended use of low grade fuel which can cause a car to wear and breakdown.

That wasn't my point and I'm sure you know it.

I have learned a lot in this thread and try to not be too closed minded, but I still have to believe that the "low fat" govco guidance of the 80's has led people to believe that because they are eating "low fat" that they can eat more, and I've seen studies to back it. Atkins is another example "eat all you want as long as it isn't carbs", even though 500 surplus calories of meat and fat are still 500 surplus calories. It all comes back to EATING MORE. Yes, there is a root to the problem. Does anyone empirically know what that root is? I would say yes, however it it shrouded in intricacies of the "weight loss" industry amongst other things.

I hate to sound conspiracy theorist, but a lot of the corn subsidies in this country may have a lot to do with it, but it's purely speculation based on rumor and innuendo. There is corn in A LOT of processed food, but those foods are still measured in calories.

I don't know if you read the whole page or not but, the idea that someone can not lose weight on a caloric deficit is not supported in fact.

And here's where people are talking past each other in this discussion, I think. This quote is true - there's no reliable evidence, after decades of increasingly sophisticated and tightly controlled research, that a calorie deficit will not result in loss of body mass.

That isn't the end of the story though - while it's easy (and often effective) to say "eat less, move more," what matters just as much is how to sustain long-term changes. And this is where things get a lot more complicated, with dozens if not hundreds of competing theories, ranging from societal (sin taxes, calorie counts on menus, even changes to zoning and planning), to cognitive and behavioral, to medical. I suspect all of these factors are relevant, but to different degrees in different groups and individuals.

To sustain weight loss, there has to be a long-term match between someone's lifestyle and their diet, and we haven't been very good at finding successful long-term strategies to correct existing imbalances - at least on a population level. No doubt people can be found for whom education about energy balance and shame can be powerful motivators, and will "work." But there's also no shortage of evidence that shame can and will have the opposite effect for many people.

By the same token, highly restrictive diets (e.g., ketogenic, vegan) may work very well for some people, but there is also good evidence that greater flexibility works better for many people. Of course, when I say the diets "work," I mean only that people are able to adhere to them - because in the end, a temporary energy deficit without long-term adherence is of little value.

This debate about "fault" and the role it plays in diets is beside the point, in my opinion. I don't like how many gurus, authors, and bloggers attract audiences by starting their pitch with "It's not your fault!" - or the other side of the coin "Just stop being a lazy glutton." "Fault" is not that relevant and I think it's generally counterproductive to discuss; value judgments will taint a discussion that should be based on evidence and outcomes.

Should regular exercise not be recommended for a particular person, just because it might back-handedly imply a character failure for the person's lack of exercise before? No. The value judgment shouldn't be relevant - what matters is, what are the person's goals now? How likely is it that certain forms of exercise or activity will help that person reach those goals? What are the interests, habits, tastes, lifestyle factors, and health issues that will make any given change easy or hard to sustain over time? The same goes for diet questions.

Give me an otherwise healthy overweight person, let me lock them in a house with control over what they eat, and I can absolutely guarantee that they will lose weight. It's not hard - but also not of much value, because what really matters is what happens when they leave. Strategies that depend on brute willpower alone are basically doomed to fail - there's pretty solid evidence on that point, even if common sense didn't tell us that already.

Energy balance is only one piece of the puzzle, and this discussion seems to be people focusing on different pieces.

So then the question becomes why the lack of adherence? I would be curious to know if it is psychological as in a slow complacency or is it biological?

Is it addiction behavior or just a lack of concern after reaching a goal?

It's all very fascinating, but I can't see for myself the mindset. I have to qualify that by saying I haven't lost and gained back so I haven't experienced it myself. I am truly curious of others opinions on this.

The Pie chart at the bottom of the screen is correct. The only thing about it is that it takes all carbohydrates into consideration (simple, complex, and fiber) as one number (total carbs) and doesn't ...